Folks
First - a big thank you to all who have contributed to this - it has been A LOT of reading and work.
And Darcy (plus earlier authors) - this sums up the comments well - noting my comments below.
That said, I’d change the first paragraphs slightly.
I’d delete mention of the 'Save Domain Privacy' in the your first paragraph since you deal with it in the third. And I’d change the third paragraph to read:
The Save Domain Privacy petition, signed by over 10,000 people, included the statement that 'privacy providers should not be forced to reveal my private information without verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.” We as a sub team could not agree on how to interpret the use of the term ‘verifiable evidence’. Some on the sub team view the term as supporting Annex E because Annex E calls, in essence, for verifiable evidence. Others on the sub team interpret the term as calling for a higher standard of evidence than what is required in Annex E, and therefore not in support of the Annex as now drafted.
Maybe this represents just my thinking, but I have not, in my mind, equated verifiable evidence with a court process. As per earlier discussions on the list, verifiable means something that could be proven, not that it has been accepted/proved in a legal context (subpoena, court order). In other words, verifiable evidence is something less than legal process, but a very high standard nevertheless.
My other change is that Annex E does not use the term verifiable evidence, which is why I added the phrase ‘in essence’.
I realise that sounds like mere pedantry, but I think we have to be very careful with language. Otherwise, we present positions as more polarised than I think they are.
I’m happy to be corrected
Holly
Hi, all!
In follow up to our call earlier this week, attached is an updated Sub-team 3 analysis draft with the overview added at the beginning. I redlined my changes so you can clearly see what I’ve done. I hope you find that I present a clear and accurate overview.
I also made some minor revisions to Section V (“Comments that did not fit neatly into any of the above categories”) that I realized after submitting my original draft of that section made a bit more sense. Again, I’ve redlined the changes so you can easily see what changed.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thanks,
Darcy
Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3